What's new

Defense Official: Qaher 313 Home-Made Fighter Jet to Protect Persian Gulf

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tunnel testing would be good but main challenge is internal weapon bay, Radar & engine.
You are right.those are the main challenges.these years Iran invested a lot on aviation infrastructures.as the result last year,we made our first flying laboratory called Armita and wind tunnels with the speed of 8 mach.

anyway Iran has captured RQ-170 and worked with Russians on 5th gen fighte project (the project is called shafagh).so we have access to the latest technology regarding engine and radar.

plus we build turboprop engine for an-140 under licence and have produced AESA radars for our naval vessels.
 
You are right.those are the main challenges.these years Iran invested a lot on aviation infrastructures.as the result last year,we made our first flying laboratory called Armita and wind tunnels with the speed of 8 mach.

anyway Iran has captured RQ-170 and worked with Russians on 5th gen fighte project (the project is called shafagh).so we have access to the latest technology regarding engine and radar.

plus we build turboprop engine for an-140 under licence and have produced AESA radars for our naval vessels.

RQ-170 have only RAM paint not its design is stealth & your joint venture with Russian is not for fifth generation plane. So, how can you got Radar & engine technology when Russia withdraw from this venture. Turbo-propeller engine does not use in jet planes & neither AESA Radar of naval vessel could use on fighter jet. Your current engine produce 18.6 KN thrust then how can you power these aircraft from this engine.
Our current engine which is in developing stage produces 75 KN thrust afterburner but it is underpowered to power our Tejas aircraft.
 
RQ-170 have only RAM paint not its design is stealth & your joint venture with Russian is not for fifth generation plane. So, how can you got Radar & engine technology when Russia withdraw from this venture. Turbo-propeller engine does not use in jet planes & neither AESA Radar of naval vessel could use on fighter jet. Your current engine produce 18.6 KN thrust then how can you power these aircraft from this engine.
Our current engine which is in developing stage produces 75 KN thrust afterburner but it is underpowered to power our Tejas aircraft.
I gave you examples,bro.it was just to show you Iran is not way behind in aviation industry.
 
I gave you examples,bro.it was just to show you Iran is not way behind in aviation industry.

But I thinks its way behind in aviation Industry & seriously need to end sanctions to absorb latest technology which west block to Iran even from black market.
 
But I thinks its way behind in aviation Industry & seriously need to end sanctions to absorb latest technology which west block to Iran even from black market.
thats your opinio.I wouldn't say a country that produces MALE UAVs,Passenger aircrafts,training jets,fighter jets,helicopters and is willing to produce 150 seats aircrafts by 2018 is behind.
In fact, I put Iran in better position in comparison to India.
 
thats your opinio.I wouldn't say a country that produces MALE UAVs,Passenger aircrafts,training jets,fighter jets,helicopters and is willing to produce 150 seats aircrafts by 2018 is behind.
In fact, I put Iran in better position in comparison to India.

Lets not make India vs. Iran thread but you seriously need to get out of sanction because I am got pissed after seeing regular high tech equipment RC model by Iran.
 
RQ-170 have only RAM paint not its design is stealth & your joint venture with Russian is not for fifth generation plane. So, how can you got Radar & engine technology when Russia withdraw from this venture. Turbo-propeller engine does not use in jet planes & neither AESA Radar of naval vessel could use on fighter jet. Your current engine produce 18.6 KN thrust then how can you power these aircraft from this engine.
Our current engine which is in developing stage produces 75 KN thrust afterburner but it is underpowered to power our Tejas aircraft.

Most of what you said is right excecpt three points:
1. RQ170 is stealth design. How do you know about its paint? There is nothing official about its design but it is stealth.
2. 75 KN is for J85. Iran's turbofan is not unveiled yet. There is no information.
3. Indian engine Kaveri is not complete either. I have sources that it is 90-95 KN not 75 KN. However it is not a complete project. Where is Kaveri in practical use?
Despite the tests of kaveri in Gomorov flight center in Russia, India hope to sometime use kaveri in late 2010's.

4. I like Tejas a lot! However it is not a complete project, despite the flight on 2001.

Is India ahead of Iran? Yes but not much.
 
Most of what you said is right excecpt three points:
1. RQ170 is stealth design. How do you know about its paint? There is nothing official about its design but it is stealth.
2. 75 KN is for J85. Iran's turbofan is not unveiled yet. There is no information.
3. Indian engine Kaveri is not complete either. I have sources that it is 90-95 KN not 75 KN. However it is not a complete project. Where is Kaveri in practical use?
Despite the tests of kaveri in Gomorov flight center in Russia, India hope to sometime use kaveri in late 2010's.

4. I like Tejas a lot! However it is not a complete project, despite the flight on 2001.

Is India ahead of Iran? Yes but not much.

1. Who says RQ-170 is stealth design but its got RAM paint thats why its got stealth of its small size same logic does not applied on fighter jet because they are big in size compare to drone & have jet engine.
2. I say Iran current reverse engineered engine & didn't hope miracle of 100KN of thrust new engine.
3. Earlier target is 85 KN for Kaveri K9 version which currently produce 75KN thrust, new version K10 would be developed in 90-95 KN thrust category.
4. Tejas would got its IOC-2 in november this year & FOC in december 2014. It would inducted now but thanks to our bureaucracy.

I am saying that we are strugguling with our projects with lot of our resources & also got foreign support.
After watching Iranian product we should compare with pre-economy liberation era India.
 
Designed and developed at a cost of $2 to 3 million, not produced at a cost of 2 to 3 million.

R&D Budget for a stealth fighter plane is $3 Million ? This is even more absurd....
 

From the Orginal Article :

"That was the Americans' analysis, but we bravely declare that Qaher, (designed and developed) at a cost of $2 to 3 million, is a Basiji (volunteer) aircraft to protect the Persian Gulf," Bokayee noted.

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/irania...r-jet-protect-persian-gulf.html#ixzz2aupPcokh
 
How much stealthy it is nobody knows except its designer because photo suggest so many design flaws. It does not have internal weapon bay space. Then how could it would armed with missile if on external hard points then it will loose its stealth.

4.5 generation aircraft could detect it if in very close range then 60 km , how can it lock without effective Radar. I am not counting AWACS which USN operates from their carrier. For your Information USN F-18 Super Hornet posses AESA radar & advance jamming system.

Actually in its description, it has internal weapon bays.
So based on your logic an F-18 SH can detect an F-22 or an F-35 too. This plane is much smaller, it is in the size of an F-5 plus stealth technology, as for the radar, Iran has the AESA technology in big radars, it has also the technology to miniaturise it, or it can use some innovative ways of homing in on the attacking aircrafts radars until it is close enough to lunch its Air to air missiles, this is just a guess, they might still have better ideas and technologies.
For the jamming systems, how can one jam a radar that spots him from a 1000 km or more and has his position, speed and direction.
 
Actually in its description, it has internal weapon bays.
So based on your logic an F-18 SH can detect an F-22 or an F-35 too. This plane is much smaller, it is in the size of an F-5 plus stealth technology, as for the radar, Iran has the AESA technology in big radars, it has also the technology to miniaturise it, or it can use some innovative ways of homing in on the attacking aircrafts radars until it is close enough to lunch its Air to air missiles, this is just a guess, they might still have better ideas and technologies.
For the jamming systems, how can one jam a radar that spots him from a 1000 km or more and has his position, speed and direction.

Its resides only in description not in RC model

Every aircraft who posses sophistic radar can detect them but from very low distance compare to other aircraft. Suppose this aircraft is stealth & F-18 could detect it from 50 km then how can it lock F-18 without sophistic radar & EW suite.
If making AESA radar of ground & naval application give a point that they can make AESA for fighter aircraft then more than 20 countries posses this technology. Currently only USA has mature technology of AESA for fighter jet.

Yes they cannot jammed radar from 1000 km distance but who can shoot aircraft from 1000 km.
 
The concept:

x-36_3.jpg


x-36a-1.jpg


911d1250806051-im-bored-lets-count-1000-x-36_big.jpg



The technology:

Mcdonnell Douglas JSF proposal and x-36




X-36 Tailless Fighter Agility Research Aircraft

Project Summary X-36 in flight over Mojave desert The unusual lines of the X-36 technology demonstrator contrast sharply with the desert floor as the remotely piloted aircraft scoots across the California desert at low altitude.

The NASA/Boeing X-36 Tailless Fighter Agility Research Aircraft successfully completed a 31-flight research program at NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, Calif., in November 1997. The X-36 project team developed and demonstrated the tailless fighter design using advanced technologies to improve the maneuverability and survivability of possible future fighter aircraft. The X-36 program met or exceeded all project goals.

In a follow-on effort, the Air Force Research Lab (AFRL) contracted Boeing to fly AFRL's Reconfigurable Control for Tailless Fighter Aircraft (RESTORE) software as a demonstration of the adaptability of the neural-net algorithm to compensate for in-flight damage or malfunction of effectors, i.e., flaps, ailerons and rudders. Two RESTORE research flights were flown in December 1998, proving the viability of the software approach.

Accomplishments

The first flight of the X-36 occurred on May 17, 1997, with the final flight closing the original program on Nov. 12, 1997. A total of 31 safe and successful research flights were flown during that 25-week period, accumulating a total of 15 hours and 38 minutes of flight time and using four different versions of flight control software. The aircraft reached an altitude of 20,200 feet and a maximum angle of attack of 40 degrees.

The X-36 project team examined the aircraft's agility at low speed/high angles of attack and at high speed/low angles of attack. The X-36's speed envelope reached up to 206 knots (234 miles per hour); the aircraft was very stable and maneuverable and handled very well at both ends of the speed envelope.

For the follow-on RESTORE program, two flights were flown with the adaptive neural-net software running in conjunction with the original proven control laws. Several in-flight simulated failures of control surfaces were introduced as a problem for the reconfigurable control algorithm. Each time, the software correctly compensated for the failure and allowed the aircraft to be safely flown in spite of the degraded condition.

Technical Specifications

The X-36 is a 28-percent scale representation of a theoretical advanced fighter aircraft configuration. The Boeing Phantom Works (formerly McDonnell-Douglas) in St. Louis, Mo., built the X-36, in a cooperative agreement with NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif. It was designed to fly without the traditional tail surfaces common on most aircraft. Instead, a canard forward of the wing is utilized, in addition to split ailerons and an advanced thrust-vectoring nozzle for directional control. The X-36 is unstable in both the pitch and yaw axes; therefore, an advanced, single-channel digital fly-by-wire control system, developed with some commercially available components, stabilizes the aircraft.

Fully fueled, the X-36 prototype weighs about 1,250 pounds. It is 19 feet long and three feet high with a wingspan of just over 10 feet. A Williams International F112 turbofan engine provides about 700 pounds of thrust. A typical research flight lasts approximately 35 to 45 minutes from takeoff to touchdown.

Using a video camera mounted in the nose of the vehicle (and an on-board microphone), the X-36 is remotely-controlled by a pilot in a ground station virtual cockpit. A standard fighter-type head-up display (HUD), in addition to a moving-map representation of the vehicle's position within the range, provides excellent situational awareness for the pilot. This pilot-in-the-loop approach eliminates the need for expensive and complex autonomous flight control systems and the risks associated with their inability to deal with unknown or unforeseen phenomena once in flight.

Teamwork

The X-36 project team, consisting of employees from Boeing, and NASA's Ames and Dryden Research Centers. The project was an unparalleled accomplishment for a remotely-piloted aircraft program.

Ames and the Phantom Works developed the technologies required for tailless agile flight beginning in 1989. Based on positive results of extensive wind tunnel testing and computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis, McDonnell-Douglas in 1993 proposed building the remotely-piloted scale aircraft technology demonstrator to validate the advanced technologies in a real flight environment.

In 1994, the Phantom Works began fabrication of the two X-36 vehicles using rapid prototyping techniques in its St. Louis facility. NASA and Boeing were full partners in the project, which was jointly funded under a roughly 50/50 cost-sharing arrangement. The combined program cost for the development, fabrication, and flight testing of the two prototype aircraft was approximately $21 million. Ames led the X-36 program providing government oversight. In the flight test phase, Dryden provided the flight test experience, infrastructure and range support.

Fundng

The X-36 Program received its funding from NASA's Office of Aero-Space Technology (OAT) in Washington, D.C., and from the Boeing Co.

NASA Dryden Fact Sheets - X-36 Tailless Fighter Agility Research Aircraft | NASA


The Iranian version:

f313-16.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom